Posted on 05/19/2006 6:12:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
India has responded with diplomatic equanimity to Pope Benedict XVI's seemingly provocative remarks condemning attempts to ban religious conversion in certain states.
The pope had told India’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Amitava Tripathi, on Thursday that the country should "firmly reject" attempts "to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right to religious freedom". He had also taken note of the "disturbing signs of religious intolerance which had troubled some regions of the nation".
New Delhi responded on Friday with a statement, reiterating the constitutional "freedom of conscience" and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. "It is acknowledged universally that India is a secular and democratic country where adherents of all faiths enjoy equal rights," said a foreign ministry spokesperson.
It was the pope's second declaration this week in defence of religious freedom in countries where Christians are a minority. In India, the statement comes in the backdrop of Rajasthan planning to become the sixth state to enact the anti-conversion law the pope was referring to. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa already have laws that bar conversions but allow re-conversions to Hinduism. Jharkhand has declared its intention to enact a similar law.
The BJP-ruled Rajasthan, however, has not been able to convince Governor Pratibha Patil to give her assent to the Religious Conversion Bill. She returned the bill making a point similar to the one made by the pope -- that its provisions would affect the right to freedom of religion.
The BJP has often attributed attacks on Christian missionaries, including the murder of Graham Staines in Orissa, as reactions to their proselytising. During his recent Bharat Suraksha Yatra, BJP president Rajnath Singh had described proselytising "dangerous" and asked all BJP-ruled states to enact a similar law.
"You could have just said, "The National Liberation Front of Tripura". It seems to have Baptist origins although the original missionaries seem to have been long gone and they are very cozy with Pakistan's ISI, having received passports and visas from the ISI in the late 90s."
The external support doesn't just come from the ISI.
http://www.freeindiamedia.com/current_affairs/21_july_current_affairs.htm
As I thought. It might be a story that has some elements of truth and some urban legend qualities.
Your article has no proof or evidence other than the author's speculations. What is key is that he doesn't understand the "Baptist Church". There is no "Baptist Church". Baptists are notoriously decentralized.
In that case, America isnt a free nation either. The Bible belt states would lynch a hindu priest if they found him prosletyzing with a Gita in hand. In that way India is 100 times more welcoming and tolerant. The Jewish people, the Zoraster people all were welcomed into India.
You reminde me of the Pakistanis for whom no amount of "proof" of their culpability is "proof" enough. There have been dozens of articles linking NLFT terrorists with the Baptist Church.
" There is no "Baptist Church". Baptists are notoriously decentralized."
Doesn't matter. Whats important is that the money keeps flowing in to fund the terrorist activities.
THis article goes vitriolic against the US but at least it provides the details.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:DliSnvaDdy8J:www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php%3Fname%3DContent%26pa%3Dshowpage%26pid%3D72%26page%3D33+NLFT+baptist+US+church&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=5
That hits the nail on the head.
Already being done. look, cops crack down on crime, and dangerous criminals, who burn people alive, yes. They caught, the guy who did it (The staines murder, and a court subsequently ordered his execution.
But cops also crack down on whatever instigates violent passions, and as a consequence cuts down on their coffee and donut time (In India, actually, Tea and Samosa (stuffed pastry) time).
Just a law of bureaucracy.
That's not even remotely similar.
You say it isnt.
I say it very much is.
It isnt in your opinion, because you dont (In all likelihood) live in India.
1) Militant preachers are a problem in India
2) Their incitements lead to violence
a) By their adherents
b) By people made angry by their message, or their tactics
Therefore, the best thing to do, is to shut them up. If people wish to become christians, they will do so. It should not be out of compulsion and coercement.
The kind of preachers who offer poor and hungry tribals food, money, or medical attention on condition that they become christians are (I assume) not good christians anyway.
THAT is the sort of thing this law is aimed against.
And we arent the only non evangelising people who are troubled and upset by proselytizers... the Jews face such annoyances too.
(This is the problem with not having unfettered free speech. If it's written, you believe it must be true.)
Anyway, the claims that "The Southern Baptist Church in America" is funding the wretched NLFT ends up getting a vociferous charge and, once again, no attempt at evidence is made. I suppose one is to trust the author. I do not. Although I have found in searching some of your assertions that the exact same sentence -- word for word -- gets posted on blog after blog after blog.
The fact is, I think people got two different stories confused and simply decided that the SBC (which stands for Southern Baptist Convention, that's how I knew your article was an ill-informed opinion piece) must be funding the NLFT.
And comparing me to a Pakistani would constitute "fighting words" if you are familiar with the history of the term.
May I suggest you grow up? Adults don't need the government to deal with annoyances.
If India truly had secular government Hindus would not be second class citizens in their own country.
India would have no need for anti-conversion laws if Hindus were not persecuted in their own country. There would be no reason for a Hindu to "convert." As it is, I am truly surprised more don't claim to be Christian or Muslim.
Where's Mother Teresa when you need her? A great lady, indeed. Too bad most of the Christian missionaries in India ignore her example.
We ARE talking about the country where all manner of animals walk all over the place, leaving their calling cards everywhere, aren't we? We're talking about the country where Muslims and Hindus still kill each other, right? The place with thousands of dieties and a caste system?
I suspect the India you have in mind is the one you wish existed.
Correct.
Moreover the Hindus there are also regularly subjected to racial assaults
By individuals? I know that some homosexuals are subjected to hate crimes in America, so what's your point? That there are intolerant people in the world? Oh, the world is full of them! Staring with those who claim to be victims of intolerance.
Russia does not subscribe to relative truths when it comes to religion, Gengis Khan. They are not ashamed to say that salvation comes only through Christ and not through pagan cults, pantheistic and relativistic religions, etc.
That is completely ridiculous. Do you actually believe such nonsense or are you just arguing hyperbolically? The American south (or anywhere else here) is nothing like that, you've been watching too many movies. I doubt such a lynching has ever happened, at least in the last several generations, maybe a freak incident or two that can happen anywhere. And if it did, it would be prosecuted as a crime, and virtually all 'Bible Belters' evangelicals would be in favor of the prosecution against perps of such violence. There is a huge difference between disapproving of proselytizing (verbally trying to persuade someone to join their religion) and turning to violence. LOL, no one has beat up Tom Cruise, not even his young wife's parents.
And even the violence against Christians in India isn't primarily what is provoking such outrage, because we all realize that it is an emotional issue and sometimes people get out of hand. It is the outlawing of free religious speech that is the main issue. No one is arguing in favor of fraud or coercion through implied violence, but rather letting religious speech that uses persuasion and logic be allowed.
Here in the 'Bible Belt' some might express disapproval or mock proselytizers of other faiths, but we don't create laws against such speech.
<< Aren't you unfairly denigrating and demonizing Christians here? >>
Gengis Khan, poor silly fellow, in matters Hindu, is a fanatic, his envy-motivated, hatred-engined and rage driven fanaticism characterized by and revealing absurd or foolish speech, thoughts, or acts. Including by his blind ignorance of and maniacally obsessive froth and foam flecked denigrating and demonizing of Christians. Any expectation of or appeal to his reason, veracity and/or of any sense of what is fair in the discussion of matters religious and/or of his own sect's teachings, is but the projection of your own Judeo-Christian values upon that born in and sustained by the unreasonable, the untruthful and the nonsensical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.